Guards and side effects

osxroolz@REDACTED osxroolz@REDACTED
Sat Mar 12 12:16:37 CET 2005

> Your implied argument (that allowing arbitrary function guards would
> lead to adding bad features such as unrestricted pointer manipulation)
> is a variant of the "slippery slope" fallacy:
> <>

You infer incorrectely.

The implication is that the arguments the original poster presented in
favour of his language change, i.e.

* that he can't think of any compelling reason to prohibit it
* that he feels that the restriction is a "strict harness" and is
therefore "misguided"

are insufficient since they can be used to argue in favour of just about

> Please stick to criticising the specific construct that is being proposed.

Even more talk? Like Elvis, I want action not talk.

Looking through the erlanguage mailing archive, much friday afternoon
talk about language change, but seldom backed by a proof-of-concept
implementation. Should not the burden be on the person proposing the
changes to put in some work and present evidence, rather than demanding
that others show reason why change is not worth implementing?


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list